Prevention Research Center Collaborations With State Departments of Health: Washington State

Abstract

State health departments and Prevention Research Centers (PRCs) have complementary mandates and expertise important to improving population health. State health departments manage and administer numerous programs with broad population reach. PRCs bridge dissemination and implementation research and public health practice to improve health programming and outcomes. This paper describes the 15-year partnership between the Washington State Department of Health and the PRC at the University of Washington. Through this partnership, the Washington State Department of Health increases their research and evaluation capacity by working with the University of Washington PRC, and the University of Washington PRC receives opportunities to apply evidence in a variety of practice settings, expand the reach of their research-tested programs to new populations, and form new partnerships. The partnership focused initially on improving colorectal cancer screening rates through increased dissemination and implementation of evidence-based interventions. The partnership scope has grown to include small cancer screening projects in worksites and healthcare systems, Washington's Colorectal Cancer Control Program, breast and cervical cancer screening, hypertension control, and worksite health promotion. The partnership yields three main types of outcomes that strengthen practice and science: (1) findings from each major assessment or evaluation activity, published in the peer-reviewed literature when possible; (2) use of the findings to improve public health practice and impact; and (3) training opportunities for employees of local and state health departments and public health students. PRCs, health departments, and the populations they serve have much to gain from this type of partnership.

Use and Awareness of The Community Guide in State and Local Health Department Chronic Disease Programs

“…The higher rate of use that we found could reflect the selection of LHDs included in the 2017 LHD survey, as it includes only LHDs that implement community health programs for chronic disease prevention. Hannon et al found that only about half of cancer control practitioners they surveyed had ever used an evidence-based practice resource such as the Guide ( 14 ). Brownson et al found that 90% of SHD participants were aware of the Guide, which was similar to our finding that 87% of SHD participants were aware ( 15 ).…”

“…Studies have found that LHDs engaged in academic collaborations were more likely to report supports for the use of evidence-based decision making and more likely to implement EBIs than LHDs not engaged in such partnerships ( 19 ). Recent studies demonstrated successful formal and informal collaborations between academic institutions and SHDs or LHDs ( 14 , 19 ). Like partnerships, academic collaborations may allow health departments to fill gaps in expertise and resources that the departments themselves may not have.…”

“…It is likely that the information provided in the Guide is not enough for SHDs and LHDs to successfully adopt only EBIs or discontinue programs that are not EBIs because of the many barriers related to adopting EBIs in health departments ( 24 ). According to findings from Brownson et al and Hannon et al nearly all participants reported that they desired more training to enhance the use of evidence-based public health resources like the Guide ( 14 , 15 ). Information alone on EBIs from resources like the Guide does not seem to be enough to prevent mis-implementation of public health programs.…”

“…The rates of use among LHDs are higher than those found in previous studies. Lovelace et al, using data from the NACCHO 2010 Profile, found that only 22% of LHDs used the Guide in their work (13). It could be that increased awareness of evidence-based public health has led to more LHDs reporting using the Guide in recent years.…”

“…No studies have examined LHD population size and use of the Guide; however, Harris et al found that LHD public health practitioners who worked in larger population size jurisdictions were more likely to adapt evidencebased public health practices (23). LHDs serving larger population sizes may have more access to well-trained staff and other community partner expertise and resources, such as hospitals and universities (13). Additionally, it could be that EBIs are more difficult to adapt to smaller or rural populations.…”